Article 3: Religious Freedom vs Reform
Why in News: The Supreme Court of India observed during the Sabarimala review hearing (April 2026) that it is difficult for courts to determine what constitutes an “essential religious practice” (ERP).
Key Details
- A nine-judge Constitution Bench is examining the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- The Court highlighted that state intervention for social reform must be judged on a case-by-case basis.
- The issue arises from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which allowed entry of women of all ages.
- The Court acknowledged the complexity in defining “essential religious practices” judicially.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
- Origin of ERP Doctrine: The ERP doctrine evolved from the Shirur Mutt Case, where the Court held that only essential practices of a religion are protected under Article 25.
- Judicial Determination of Religion: Courts began deciding what constitutes “essential,” placing the judiciary in a theological role, which is often criticised as beyond its institutional competence.
- Challenges in Application: Different benches have interpreted ERP inconsistently, creating legal uncertainty and subjectivity in religious freedom cases.
- Current Concern (2026 Hearing): The Supreme Court acknowledged that identifying essential practices is “difficult if not impossible”, indicating a possible doctrinal shift.
Constitutional Framework: Articles 25 & 26
- Article 25 – Freedom of Religion: Guarantees individuals the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
- Article 26 – Rights of Religious Denominations: Provides autonomy to religious groups to manage their own affairs, including religious practices and institutions.
- Article 25(2)(b) – Social Reform Clause: Empowers the state to enact laws for social welfare and reform, even if they interfere with religious practices.
- Core Constitutional Tension: Balancing individual rights (Article 25) with group rights (Article 26) lies at the heart of the Sabarimala issue.
Sabarimala Case: Gender Equality vs Religious Freedom
- 2018 Judgment: In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the Court allowed entry of women of all ages into the temple.
- Equality Principle: The judgment relied on Articles 14, 15, and 21, emphasizing gender justice and non-discrimination.
- Religious Denomination Argument: Opponents argued that Sabarimala is a distinct religious denomination with its own practices protected under Article 26.
- Ongoing Review: The issue has been referred to a larger bench to settle broader questions on religion vs constitutional morality.
Judicial vs Legislative Role in Religious Reforms
- State as Representative of People: The Court noted that the state reflects the “will of the people”, and thus can intervene to eliminate social evils.
- Examples of Reform Laws: Practices like Sati abolition (1829) and Temple Entry laws show that social reform can override religious customs.
- Limits of Intervention: Courts caution that reform laws should not “hollow out religion” or destroy core religious identity.
- Case-by-Case Approach: The Supreme Court emphasized that no universal guideline is possible; each case depends on facts and context.
Related Issues: Dawoodi Bohra Excommunication Case
- Background Issue: The Court is also examining the validity of excommunication practices in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
- Earlier Judgment: The Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Case upheld community rights over state reform laws.
- Contemporary Challenge: The case raises questions about individual rights vs community authority, similar to Sabarimala.
- Doctrine of Finality: The Court stressed that judgments cannot be endlessly challenged, ensuring judicial stability.
Key Constitutional Concepts
- Constitutional Morality: Promoted by B.R. Ambedkar, it ensures that rights and values override social prejudices.
- Secularism in India: Indian secularism is principled equidistance, allowing state intervention for reform while respecting religion.
- Fundamental Rights vs Practices: Courts must balance individual dignity (Article 21) with religious autonomy.
- Judicial Restraint: Increasing emphasis on limiting judicial overreach in religious and cultural matters.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala case highlights the need to strike a delicate balance between religious freedom and social reform. Moving forward, courts may adopt a more restrained approach, focusing on constitutional values rather than theological determinations. Strengthening constitutional morality, ensuring gender justice, and respecting diversity will be key to sustaining India’s plural democracy.
EXPECTED QUESTIONS FOR UPSC CSE
Prelims MCQ
Q. The Essential Religious Practices doctrine was evolved in:
(a) Kesavananda Bharati Case
(b) Shirur Mutt Case
(c) Sabarimala Case
(d) Minerva Mills Case
Answer: (b)
Descriptive Question
Q. “The Essential Religious Practices doctrine places courts in a theological role.” Critically examine in the context of the Sabarimala case. (250 Words, 15 Marks)